The Railways have a general obligation to ensure the safety of passengers, and any deficiency in providing medical care within the railway premises amounts to negligence.

ORDER :

MR. JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI, PRESIDENT

1. Appellant-Complainant is aggrieved by the dismissal of her complaint by order of the District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada, Krishna District passed in CC No. 184/2012 dated 28.2.2013. The Forum has rejected her claim for compensation from the respondents-Railways on account of the death of her husband.

2. On 16.3.2012, the appellant’s husband Burle Jagan Mohana Rao travelled from Secunderabad to Vijayawada by Golconda Express Train No, 23702 on a valid ticket (Ex. Al). Unfortunately after deboarding the train, he died within the precincts of the Vijayawada Railway Station at Gate No. 2. Sadly, the dead body was lying at the same place till around 00.30 hrs without being noticed. An RPF Head Constable by name P. Nagamalleswara Rao who was performing duty from 22.00 hrs (16.3.2012) visited the spot at 12:30 hrs i.e., in the early hours of 17.3.2012 after noticing the public gathering there. He reported the incident to the Dy. Station Superintendent by name Shaik Baji Saheb who passed on the information to the CRP and the RPF stations over phone and visited the spot at 1.00 hours. By then ambulance had arrived and the individual was examined by the attendants and declared him dead. At about 1.30 a.m. the Dy. Superintendent informed the Railway Hospital, Vijayawada and after 4½ hours i.e., at 6.00 Hrs a doctor by name Nancy examined the body and pronounced the individual dead.

3. On 17.9.2012, the appellant addressed a legal notice (Ex. A6) alleging that her husband died because of the negligence on the part of the respondents. She found fault with the respondents for failing to provide medical care till midnight, though the deceased was in the station after alighting the train at about 8 p.m. She claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lakh for having lost her companion and bread winner of the family. The respondents gave reply (Ex. A10) dated 8.10.2012 through the Manager/Claims & Passenger officer, disclaiming responsibility of the Railways for the death. They denied negligence and rejected the claim for compensation stating that it was a natural death and did not come under the purview of “Accidents and Untoward Incidents” under the Railways Ac.

4. In the above circumstances, the appellant moved the complaint in question before the Forum. She claimed compensation, interest and costs. She filed a copy of the ticket as Ex. Al to prove that the deceased travelled as a passenger and relied on Exs. A2 and A3 statements of the Dy. Station Master and Ex. A4 letter dated 17.3.2012 of the Senior Divisional Medical Officer to prove negligence. She filed her own affidavit as PW.

5. The respondents opposed, the claim on the same grounds as mentioned in Ex. A10 tetter, They took the stand that the claim was inadmissible as the deceased died a natural death but not on account of their negligence. They contended that there was no reason as to why the deceased stayed at the Railway Station till midnight when he had arrived at 8.00 p.m. They relied on the statement and affidavit of the RPF Head constable who first reported the incident to the Dy. Station Superintendent. They also filed affidavits of the Dy. Chief Commercial Manager and the S.I. of Police, Railways. They also relied on Ex. B3 letter of the appellant addressed to the Station House Officer stating that her husband died due to heart attack.

6. The Forum, considering the matter from its own perspective, dismissed the complaint. The Forum was more impressed by the fact that the appellant did not give any explanation why the deceased was in the station premises till midnight. The Forum reached the conclusion that the death was a natural death and not an untoward incident or accident and that there was no negligence on the part of the respondents.

7. Heard.

8. The main contention of Mr. Nandigama Krishna Rao, Advocate on behalf of the appellant/complainant is that the Forum did not appreciate the evidence on record properly. His contention is that the dece